Evan Lenz wrote:
> 
> The question in my mind is: should the W3C recommend two different languages
> which provide "broadly equivalent functionality"? And they're not just
> equivalent, but they have almost indistinguishable data models and
> processing models. And I think once they come up with an XML syntax, it will
> be even harder to look at XQuery with a straight face, with XSLT 1.0 having
> been published for well over a year.
> 
> What's more is that it seems that the XPath 2.0 and XSLT 2.0 requirements
> are trying to fill the gap with regard to whatever slight differences there
> currently are between XSLT and XQuery.
> 
> My simplistic analysis is that
> 
> XQuery = XSLT - templateRules - nonAbbreviatedXPathAxes
...
> And I was hurt by the distinction between "a human-readable query syntax and
> an XML-based query syntax".

But it would allow someone to prove a point by providing a mapping from
the "human-readable query syntax" to XSLT as "an XML-based query
syntax", no?

Francis.

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list